面对日常互动中 "面子 "概念化的差异

IF 1.8 2区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Intercultural Pragmatics Pub Date : 2024-08-29 DOI:10.1515/ip-2024-4001
Robert B. Arundale
{"title":"面对日常互动中 \"面子 \"概念化的差异","authors":"Robert B. Arundale","doi":"10.1515/ip-2024-4001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ever since Goffman examined “face” in social interaction in 1955, researchers in intercultural and sociocultural pragmatics have employed the concept in many ways, and have developed a number of different positions on what the concept entails and on how to study it. Following Goffman, face is uniformly conceptualized as a phenomenon apparent in everyday interacting, but in focusing on the characteristics of face, researchers have routinely overlooked their conceptualizations of everyday interaction. This article examines twelve current conceptualizations of face, focusing particularly on their conceptualizations of everyday interacting and their implications for examining face, and providing researchers with bases for choosing a conceptualization that will be productive in addressing their research questions regarding face in everyday interacting.","PeriodicalId":13669,"journal":{"name":"Intercultural Pragmatics","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Facing differences in conceptualizing “Face” in everyday interacting\",\"authors\":\"Robert B. Arundale\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ip-2024-4001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Ever since Goffman examined “face” in social interaction in 1955, researchers in intercultural and sociocultural pragmatics have employed the concept in many ways, and have developed a number of different positions on what the concept entails and on how to study it. Following Goffman, face is uniformly conceptualized as a phenomenon apparent in everyday interacting, but in focusing on the characteristics of face, researchers have routinely overlooked their conceptualizations of everyday interaction. This article examines twelve current conceptualizations of face, focusing particularly on their conceptualizations of everyday interacting and their implications for examining face, and providing researchers with bases for choosing a conceptualization that will be productive in addressing their research questions regarding face in everyday interacting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13669,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Intercultural Pragmatics\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Intercultural Pragmatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2024-4001\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Intercultural Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2024-4001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自 1955 年戈夫曼研究社会互动中的 "面子 "以来,跨文化和社会文化语用学的研究者们以多种方式使用了这一概念,并对这一概念的内涵和研究方法形成了多种不同的立场。按照戈夫曼的观点,"面子 "被统一概念化为日常互动中的一种明显现象,但在关注 "面子 "的特征时,研究者往往忽略了他们对日常互动的概念化。本文探讨了目前关于面孔的十二种概念,特别关注了它们对日常互动的概念化及其对研究面孔的影响,并为研究者提供了选择一种概念化的依据,这种概念化将有助于解决他们关于日常互动中面孔的研究问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Facing differences in conceptualizing “Face” in everyday interacting
Ever since Goffman examined “face” in social interaction in 1955, researchers in intercultural and sociocultural pragmatics have employed the concept in many ways, and have developed a number of different positions on what the concept entails and on how to study it. Following Goffman, face is uniformly conceptualized as a phenomenon apparent in everyday interacting, but in focusing on the characteristics of face, researchers have routinely overlooked their conceptualizations of everyday interaction. This article examines twelve current conceptualizations of face, focusing particularly on their conceptualizations of everyday interacting and their implications for examining face, and providing researchers with bases for choosing a conceptualization that will be productive in addressing their research questions regarding face in everyday interacting.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
36.40%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: Intercultural Pragmatics is a fully peer-reviewed forum for theoretical and applied pragmatics research. The goal of the journal is to promote the development and understanding of pragmatic theory and intercultural competence by publishing research that focuses on general theoretical issues, more than one language and culture, or varieties of one language. Intercultural Pragmatics encourages ‘interculturality’ both within the discipline and in pragmatic research. It supports interaction and scholarly debate between researchers representing different subfields of pragmatics including the linguistic, cognitive, social, and interlanguage paradigms. The intercultural perspective is relevant not only to each line of research within pragmatics but also extends to several other disciplines such as anthropology, theoretical and applied linguistics, psychology, communication, sociolinguistics, second language acquisition, and bi- and multilingualism. Intercultural Pragmatics makes a special effort to cross disciplinary boundaries. What we primarily look for is innovative approaches and ideas that do not always fit into existing paradigms, and lead to new ways of thinking about language. Intercultural Pragmatics has always encouraged the publication of theoretical papers including linguistic and philosophical pragmatics that are very important for research in intercultural pragmatics.
期刊最新文献
“You’re such an idiot, but I’m only joking”: The perception of mock impoliteness by British and Italian men and women Self-translations in multilingual workplace interaction Facing differences in conceptualizing “Face” in everyday interacting Interculturality and decision making: Pursuing jointness in online teams Autistic children and control children use similar strategies when answering false belief questions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1